4 ms·

Does TradeHill have to prove that bitcoin has value at all, first? Do they even have a leg to stand on?

by lysol 15y ago

joezydeco 15y ago
Does bitcoin really have a part in this whole problem? If you substitute "TradeHill" for "E*Trade" and "bitcoins" for "stocks" the problem would still be the same, right?
- DarkShikari 15y ago
  There is a slight relevance of Bitcoin: Bitcoin transactions are irreversible. There is no real technical means to reverse a transaction; it is simply not possible. Even if there was a court order to reverse a transaction, unless the physical recipient could be identified, located, and arrested, the court order would be meaningless. This is in contrast to almost any other exchange system (besides hard cash), which could, at least technically, force reversal of a transaction. See for example Paypal, Facebook credits, money in an MMORPG, shares of stock, and so forth.
  - ars 15y ago
    It's not the exchange system that matters, it's who holds the account. With bitcoin if I hold my coins in a currency exchange (which is basically a bank) they can obey the court order and reverse transactions. And I can become my own bank, and then hide, in which case it would be hard to serve a court order on me. (Although banks often have accounts at the fed, so they don't hold the money themself.) What's unique about bitcoin is most people hold their own accounts. So you have to find the account holder, which is hard. But, as I said, it's not the exchange the matters, it's the account holder.
    - DarkShikari 15y ago
      With bitcoin if I hold my coins in a currency exchange (which is basically a bank) they can obey the court order and reverse transactions. It would be trivial if it was that simple, but the stolen funds were of course withdrawn from Tradehill, and so are no longer in control of an exchange. It's no different from a criminal running off with a bag of cash; how are you going to "reverse" the transaction of the money being physically picked up, put in a bag, and carted off?
      - ars 15y ago
        That's basically what I said. You are not arguing with me. I was just pointing out the distinction is not in the type of currency or exchange, it's in who holds the account.
rcthompson 15y ago
If you sold some artwork you made in your basement and were then defrauded by chargebacks from your payment processor, would you be required to prove that your "artwork" has value in order to claim damages? The fact that you sold if for an amount agreed upon by you and the buyer is what matters, not any provable intrinsic value the thing being sold may have. Whether you sell $1M diamond or a 5-cent bottle cap for $100, that's $100 in damages if the processor does a fraudulent chargeback.
mrb 15y ago
This lawsuit is not about bitcoins. It is about fraudulent US dollars transfers.

Does TradeHill have to prove that bitcoin has value at all, first? Do they even have a leg to stand on?

by lysol 15y ago

Does TradeHill have to prove that bitcoin has value at all, first? Do they even have a leg to stand on?

Does bitcoin really have a part in this whole problem? If you substitute "TradeHill" for "E*Trade" and "bitcoins" for "stocks" the problem would still be the same, right?

DarkShikari 15y ago
There is a slight relevance of Bitcoin: Bitcoin transactions are irreversible. There is no real technical means to reverse a transaction; it is simply not possible. Even if there was a court order to reverse a transaction, unless the physical recipient could be identified, located, and arrested, the court order would be meaningless. This is in contrast to almost any other exchange system (besides hard cash), which could, at least technically, force reversal of a transaction. See for example Paypal, Facebook credits, money in an MMORPG, shares of stock, and so forth.
- ars 15y ago
  It's not the exchange system that matters, it's who holds the account. With bitcoin if I hold my coins in a currency exchange (which is basically a bank) they can obey the court order and reverse transactions. And I can become my own bank, and then hide, in which case it would be hard to serve a court order on me. (Although banks often have accounts at the fed, so they don't hold the money themself.) What's unique about bitcoin is most people hold their own accounts. So you have to find the account holder, which is hard. But, as I said, it's not the exchange the matters, it's the account holder.
  - DarkShikari 15y ago
    With bitcoin if I hold my coins in a currency exchange (which is basically a bank) they can obey the court order and reverse transactions. It would be trivial if it was that simple, but the stolen funds were of course withdrawn from Tradehill, and so are no longer in control of an exchange. It's no different from a criminal running off with a bag of cash; how are you going to "reverse" the transaction of the money being physically picked up, put in a bag, and carted off?
    - ars 15y ago
      That's basically what I said. You are not arguing with me. I was just pointing out the distinction is not in the type of currency or exchange, it's in who holds the account.

rcthompson 15y ago

If you sold some artwork you made in your basement and were then defrauded by chargebacks from your payment processor, would you be required to prove that your "artwork" has value in order to claim damages? The fact that you sold if for an amount agreed upon by you and the buyer is what matters, not any provable intrinsic value the thing being sold may have. Whether you sell $1M diamond or a 5-cent bottle cap for $100, that's $100 in damages if the processor does a fraudulent chargeback.

mrb 15y ago

This lawsuit is not about bitcoins. It is about fraudulent US dollars transfers.